What if there is a hung jury in Trump's trial?

[vision63]

Spock wrote:
[quote=vision63]
[quote=Ombligo]
[quote=vision63]
If the jury feels like sitting there for 30 days over this, then they'll be a hardy bunch. Michael Cohen would be all, "Then what did I go to prison for?"

Having sat through numerous trials, what the jury isn't told is often what they really need to hear. Sometimes I feel like there needs to be a 3-5 minute window at the end of any testimony where the person on the witness stand can say what they believe should have been asked but they weren't allowed to say (or were cut off by counsel).
Perry Mason would be objecting. "That's Incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial!!"
Jackie Chiles would be objecting. "It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous!”
But what would cousin Vinny say?
Cousin Vinny would be objecting. "Oh, excuse me Your Honor: two youTHs"

[SteveG]

After he loses the election there are 3 more serious felony trials coming for Traitor Trump.

[RgrF]

Trump isn't arguing that he's innocent, he's arguing that he has a right to be a criminal...

[steve...]

Steve G. wrote:
After he loses the election there are 3 more serious felony trials coming for Traitor Trump.

if there is a God, if karma exists, our Trump nightmare can be over.

:wall:

[vision63]

steve... wrote:
[quote=Steve G.]
After he loses the election there are 3 more serious felony trials coming for Traitor Trump.

if there is a God, if karma exists, our Trump nightmare can be over.

:wall:
...oh lord, please smite him....

[Ca Bob]

In any ordinary trial, this would be a slam dunk conviction on all counts. A hung jury can happen in any trial, but it would most likely be 11-1 instead of a 12-0 conviction. The number of holdout jurors will become known. If Trump were to claim vindication, this wouldn't do well politically with the in-between voters. The headlines write themselves: "Trump pulls off an OJ."

And of course the prosecutor will announce and the judge will schedule a retrial.

It might also be the moment for the judge to announce that Donald gets 90 days in jail for contempt based on his violations of the gag orders.

Here's the thing: The prosecution are not morons, and they did the best they could in vetting the jury pool. They used peremptory challenges for anybody they thought could be a hidden Magat, and asked the court to challenge for cause when they thought they could get away with it. We should trust the jury to do an honest job until they prove differently.

And yes, it would always be possible for one or more jurors to be convinced by the defense arguments (Cohen certainly has a record for being a liar, etc) to vote for acquittal. They have to connect the original payoff with what is essentially election tampering as opposed to a billionaire just wasting a little of his money. My prediction, however, is that they will be out for one day and convict on all counts, or almost all counts.

[pdq]

Ca Bob wrote:
In any ordinary trial, this would be a slam dunk conviction on all counts.

That’s kinda my feeling too. As usual, lots of fireworks, and Cohen is not the greatest witness, but (I think) they just need to show that Trump paid off Stormy Daniels and called it legal fees. He did so circuitously, but that just shows intent to hide and thus evidence of culpability.

Ca Bob wrote: My prediction, however, is that they will be out for one day and convict on all counts, or almost all counts.

I’m not ready to go there; we all thought OJ would be found guilty too, so you can never tell.

If he is found guilty, they’ll probably be deferential and let him campaign while his lawyers appeal ad infinitum. Or he’ll be out until sentencing, and then they’ll give him probation, which he will ignore.

But I’d still be happy to see him being held accountable as a felon.

[vision63]

RgrF wrote:
Trump isn't arguing that he's innocent, he's arguing that he has a right to be a criminal...

A whole 'nother level of insanity.

[$tevie]

Cohen may not be the world's greatest witness, but he did go to jail for aiding Trump. I think that at least some jurors may ask themselves why it was a crime for Cohen to help Trump, unless he was helping Trump commit a crime.

[Ted King]

$tevie wrote:
Cohen may not be the world's greatest witness, but he did go to jail for aiding Trump. I think that at least some jurors may ask themselves why it was a crime for Cohen to help Trump, unless he was helping Trump commit a crime.

From what I've seen, Trump learned one thing really well from his mob lawyer Roy Cohn decades ago - keep his "fingerprints" off of anything illegal by having fall guys do it for him. There's lots of circumstantial evidence to lead a reasonable person to infer beyond a reasonable doubt that this was not a rogue operation and that Trump was at a minimum closely involved and approved, but if there is a hard-headed member of the jury (for whatever reason) that insists that "beyond a doubt" in this case means that the prosecution has to have presented proof of a direct link (no inferences) that Trump knew what was happening when he signed those checks, then for them it depends on whether they believe Cohen or not. I think if the member of jury has an inclination to want a very high threshold for "beyond a reasonable doubt" then they can easily lean into not believing Cohen to rationalize having a "reasonable doubt" that Trump actually broke the law.